You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Timing of norepinephrine in septic patients: NOT too little too late
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0691-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Sebastien Rachoin, Richard P Dellinger |
| Abstract |
After years and years of consensus expert opinion as to mean arterial pressure (MAP) target and vasopressor choice in septic shock management, literature is now emerging that supports the MAP target of 65 mm Hg and norepinephrine as the vasopressor choice. However, the literature remains sparse as to the timing of vasopressors relative to fluid resuscitation and how MAP support is balanced between the choices of vasopressor versus fluid resuscitation. Bai and colleagues report data that reveal an association between earlier vasopressor initiation in septic shock and better outcome. Whether this is a linkage to better care, is related to improved early tissue perfusion, or relates to sparing of fluids to reach the MAP target is not yet known. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 23% |
| Russia | 1 | 5% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 62% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,702,921
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,337
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,951
of 360,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#29
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.